Gordon Campbell on last night’s TV3 debate

Gordon Campbell on last night’s TV3
debate

Phil Goff’s won last
night’s TV3 leaders’ debate handily, such that
it seemed as if John Key has already decided that Goff is no
longer the main thing standing between him and comprehensive
victory. The rise of Winston Peters, and the parlous state
of his wavering coalition allies in Epsom and Ohariu mean
that Goff probably rates about third on Key’s list of
concerns right now. Whatever the reason, Key was virtually
missing in action last night. He looked as if… well, as if
he thought that the TV3 debate didn’t really matter. And
probably, it didn’t.

On both sides, there were the usual
reasons to tear out one’s hair. Key assured us he would
use the proceeds from asset sales – and at one point, he
used the $7 billion figure that only a Treasury
apparatchiks regard as even faintly credible – to
prudently sell down debt. In the next breath, he said he
would be spending the proceeds on things that New Zealanders
use and need, like schools, hospitals and… irrigation
schemes. Hmm, can’t recall the last time I needed to take
the kids to the Late Night Irrigation Canal, but nice to
know it will be there if the need ever arises.

As Rod
Oram has consistently pointed out, Cabinet papers earlier
this year showed those irrigation schemes would deliver a
poor return on the investment. Conclusive evidence also
exists to show that it would make more economic sense to
borrow the money than to sell down the assets. Such
arguments never got into the frame last night.

If asset
sales are the albatross round John Key’s neck, Goff’s
main liability last night was the former member from
Tauranga. Phil Goff tried to address the ‘Would he have
Winston Peters in his government’ question by saying that
he’d have to wait and see what the people decide, and if
Peters was in Parliament then Goff was sure Peters would act
responsibly and he could work with him blah blah, In the
next breath though, democracy went out the window when it
came to Hone Harawira who – peoples’ choice or not –
would be no part of any government that Goff led because
that would make things unacceptably ‘unstable.’ Huh?

Evidently, New Zealand First is being treated by Labour
as a more compatible potential partner in government than
the Mana Party. Few voters on the centre-left would agree.
Moreover, depicting Harawira as unstable and ruling out
working with him doesn’t seem like the best way of
mobilising the Labour vote in south Auckland on Saturday.

Much of this is entirely a moot point, since Peters first
has to get into Parliament. If he does, Peters himself has
said he won’t be part of any formal arrangement with
either Labour or National, but will treat each issue on its
merits in Parliament and vote accordingly. Given the
control freak tendencies in both major parties, this is seen
by them as problematic. Key for instance, has been claiming
Peters would be willing and able to trigger a fresh election
at any time, and is using that bogey as a reason for centre
right voters to give him an absolute majority on Saturday.

In fact, Key will first have to form a government –
with or without the co-operation of Peters – so any
subsequent decision to call a fresh election would be one
for which Key’s government would share some
responsibility. (In a democracy, a government can’t throw
its toys out of the cot without being punished by the public
for doing so.) This situation of mutually assured
destruction would exert its own disciplines, and would
foster a salutary need for caution by all concerned.

But
to repeat: the Peters spectre is entirely hypothetical. For
many voters, the thought of National having absolute power
is a far more terrifying prospect than any potential threat
posed by New Zealand First.

For Labour – which on
current polling, will need him if it is to govern at all –
Peters is a known quantity with whom they can do business.
Tellingly Peters is felt by the Labour leadership to be more
amenable, and more simpatico with them than Harawira. (Yet
another sign that the control freaks in Labour find it hard
to work as equals with anyone further to the left of them on
the political spectrum.) That’s despite the fact that
Harawira is far closer to Labour on policy questions – re
welfare reform, minimum wage policy, capital gains tax etc
– than Peters. Here for instance, is an exchange I had
with Harawira a
couple of years ago:

Campbell
: OK. So, when you look at the desired direction
of welfare policy for Maori, and you look at the desired
direction of industrial relations policy for Maori – which
of the two major parties offers you the better framework to
work under?

Harawira : For our
people, because they’re primarily in the lower
socio-economic bracket ? Labour. For the simple reason that
Labour has always maintained a clear view of consistently
raising the basic minimum wage.

At this
point, Peters is just another deliberate distraction. Asset
sales – which are a far more concrete reality – remain
the Achilles heel for John Key during the rest of this
campaign, and for good reason. There is no economic
justification for them and the public don’t want them.
They are little more than an ideological bone being thrown
to the government’s corporate backers. Goff may have
performed well last night, but nothing appears likely now to
stop those assets from being put on the auction block after
next Saturday.

Scoop Citizen Members and ScoopPro Organisations are the lifeblood of Scoop.

20 years of independent publishing is a milestone, but your support is essential to keep Scoop thriving. We are building on our offering with new In-depth Engaged Journalism platform - thedig.nz.
Find out more and join us:

ALSO:

In the circumstances, yesterday’s move by Lam to scrap – rather than merely suspend – the hated extradition law that first triggered the protests three months ago, seems like the least she can do. It may also be too little, too late. More>>

The DOC-led draft Biodiversity Strategy seeks a “shared vision.” But there are more values and views around wildlife than there are species. How can we hope to agree on the shape of Aotearoa’s future biota? More>>

We are in a moment of existential peril, with interconnected climate and biodiversity crises converging on a global scale to drive most life on Earth to the brink of extinction… These massive challenges can, however, be reframed as a once in a lifetime opportunity to fundamentally change how humanity relates to nature and to each other. Read on The Dig>>